The contemporary global order finds itself at a critical juncture as the India-US-China triangle undergoes significant recalibration amid President Donald Trump’s unconventional foreign policy approach. This triangular relationship, which has historically been characterised by strategic competition balanced with economic interdependence, is now experiencing unprecedented strain as Trump’s administration pursues what appears to be a transactional approach that prioritises immediate gains over long-term strategic partnerships.
Trump’s Tactical Pivot Towards China
The Trump administration’s recent softening approach toward China represents a dramatic shift from the confrontational stance that defined much of 2025. Following the imposition of 145% tariffs on Chinese goods in April 2025, the US and China reached a temporary trade truce in May, bringing tariffs down to 30% for the US and 10% for China. This de-escalation culminated in several concrete concessions from the Trump administration that signal a fundamental recalculation of priorities.
The most significant indicators of this softer approach include the approval of Nvidia’s H20 AI chip exports to China, the lifting of restrictions on Chinese access to US electronic design automation software, and the relaxation of rare earth export controls. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick explicitly acknowledged that these measures were part of a broader trade agreement, stating that “we put that in the trade deal with the magnets”. This represents a stark reversal from previous restrictions aimed at limiting China’s technological advancement.
Perhaps most symbolically, the Trump administration denied Taiwan President Lai Ching-te’s planned transit through New York, ending a three-decade precedent of allowing such stopovers. This decision, reportedly made at China’s request, has been widely interpreted as Trump prioritizing Chinese sensitivities over traditional alliance commitments in pursuit of a trade deal and potential Xi Jinping summit.
India Faces Unprecedented Pressure
In stark contrast to this accommodating approach toward China, Trump has taken an increasingly punitive stance toward India. On July 30, 2025, Trump announced a 25% tariff on Indian goods plus an unspecified penalty for India’s energy and defence purchases from Russia. This decision came despite months of trade negotiations and represents a significant escalation from previous trade disputes.
Trump’s criticism of India has been particularly harsh, describing the country as having “the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country”. The penalty specifically targets India’s status as Russia’s largest energy buyer alongside China, with Russia continuing to supply 35% of India’s total oil requirements. Additionally, Trump criticised India’s defence relationship with Russia, noting that India has “always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia”.
The trade tensions have been compounded by Trump’s repeated claims of mediating the India-Pakistan ceasefire, despite Indian officials’ clear rebuttals. Trump’s recent engagement with Pakistan, including hosting Army Chief General Asim Munir and announcing a Pakistan oil reserves deal immediately after imposing tariffs on India, has further strained bilateral relations.
The Contradiction in Strategic Logic
Trump’s approach reveals a fundamental contradiction in his administration’s strategic thinking. While China poses the primary long-term strategic challenge to US global dominance, Trump’s policies suggest prioritisation of immediate economic gains over sustained strategic competition. This is particularly evident in his willingness to relax technology export controls to China while simultaneously alienating India, a key strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific.
The rare earth minerals agreement exemplifies this short-term thinking. China’s control of approximately 90% of global rare earth permanent magnet production gives Beijing significant leverage, which Trump appears willing to accommodate rather than challenge through alternative partnerships. The 158% increase in Chinese rare earth magnet exports following the June 2025 trade agreement demonstrates how quickly China can manipulate supply chains for geopolitical advantage.
Impact on Traditional Alliances
Trump’s transactional approach has had profound implications for US alliances in the Indo-Pacific. Japan and South Korea, despite being treaty allies, face 25% tariffs, while Trump has questioned the fundamental value of these partnerships. Japanese officials have privately expressed concerns about US reliability, with some suggesting Japan needs to “make more efforts to become less dependent on the US”.
The broader pattern suggests Trump views alliances as conditional arrangements contingent on financial contributions rather than shared strategic interests. This perspective fundamentally undermines the multilateral coalition-building that has been central to containing Chinese influence in the region.
India’s Strategic Recalibration
Faced with Trump’s unpredictable approach, India appears to be pursuing a careful recalibration of its strategic autonomy doctrine. Recent diplomatic exchanges suggest a cautious thaw in India-China relations, with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s visit to Beijing representing the first such trip in five years. This tactical pivot appears partly driven by concerns about US reliability under Trump’s leadership.
India’s participation in both the Quad partnership with the US, Japan, and Australia, and the BRICS grouping with China and Russia exemplifies this balancing approach. At the July 2025 BRICS summit in Brazil, where both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin were absent, India found an opportunity to shape the organization’s agenda toward Global South priorities rather than anti-Western bloc politics.
However, India continues to face Chinese economic coercion, particularly through export restrictions on rare earth elements and customs delays affecting automotive components. Beijing’s strategy appears designed to exploit India’s economic vulnerabilities while maintaining diplomatic engagement, creating what can be described as a “carrot and stick” approach.
The Russia Factor
India’s relationship with Russia adds another layer of complexity to the triangle. Bilateral trade reached a record $68.7 billion in fiscal year 2024-25, with Russia serving as India’s primary oil supplier. This relationship has deep historical roots, with Russia providing critical defence technologies including nuclear-powered submarines and S-400 missile systems that no other country offers.
Trump’s threats of secondary sanctions on Russian energy buyers directly challenge India’s energy security calculations. India has consistently maintained that it will “buy oil from the cheapest available source” and prioritise its citizens’ interests over Western sanctions regimes. This principled stance has placed India at odds with Trump’s demands for compliance with US sanctions policies.
Long-term Strategic Implications
Trump’s approach reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of power dynamics in the 21st century. By prioritising temporary trade gains over sustained strategic competition, the administration risks ceding long-term advantages to China. Beijing’s patient, generational approach to building influence contrasts sharply with Trump’s quarter-to-quarter transactional thinking.
The alienation of strategic partners like India and traditional allies like Japan undermines the very coalition necessary to balance Chinese power. China’s Belt and Road Initiative and expanding global partnerships continue to advance while Trump’s policies fragment Western unity and partnership networks.
Conclusion
The India-US-China triangle is undergoing its most significant reconfiguration since the end of the Cold War. Trump’s pursuit of immediate economic gains through trade deals with China, combined with his punitive approach toward strategic partners, represents a fundamental departure from decades of strategic continuity. This approach risks transforming a manageable strategic competition into a more volatile and unpredictable confrontation.
India’s response, carefully balancing engagement with both superpowers while maintaining strategic autonomy, may prove to be the most pragmatic approach in this new environment. However, the long-term consequences of Trump’s policies extend far beyond the immediate trade disputes. By undermining alliance structures and prioritising transactional relationships over strategic partnerships, Trump’s approach may inadvertently accelerate the emergence of a multipolar world order where US influence is constrained by its own policy choices.
The ultimate irony may be that in seeking to extract immediate concessions from China while alienating India and other partners, Trump’s policies could strengthen precisely the strategic competitors he claims to be confronting. The true test of American leadership lies not in the ability to impose tariffs, but in the capacity to build and maintain the coalitions necessary for sustained strategic success in an increasingly complex global order.
